by Neha Dabhade
(Secular Perspective Feb.16-28, 2018)
Historical figures are complex and shaped by the context they lived out
of. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel is no exception. Vallabhbhai Patel
popularly known as the "indomitable iron man" of India is credited with
unifying India when India was a cluster of numerous princely states at
the time of independence and Patel was the first home minister of
independent India. During the tumultuous times of the partition and
subsequently the assassination of Gandhi, the leadership of the country
had to guide it through many ups and downs towards a secular democracy
that India has evolved into and still evolving. Nehru and Patel along
with the others took tough decisions to serve this end. One of them was
banning of RSS. Though Patel was instrumental in this decision, he is
appropriated and co-opted by the RSS and BJP as one supporting their
brand of politics and ideology- Hindutva while Nehru is derided for
being weak and responsible for partition. Moreover the narrative that
pits Nehru
against Patel has gained currency and the two unfairly compared by the
right wing which completely obliterates the fact that both leaders had
one vision for the country and enjoyed each other's confidence.
Patel was again brought at the centre stage of public discourse by the
Prime Minister recently. "Had Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel been India's
first Prime Minister, a part of my Kashmir would not have been with
Pakistan today" (Ashok, 2018). BJP and RSS have positioned themselves
lately as ideological heirs of Patel. PM Modi wants to build 'statue of
unity' as he refers to Patel and also commemorate his birthday as
national unity day. He goes on to add, "There have been attempts to run
down Patel, to ensure that the contribution of Patel is forgotten. But
Sardar is Sardar, whether any government or any party recognizes his
contribution or not but the nation and the youth will not forget him"
(Indian Express, 2017). Similarly Venkaiah Naidu also praised Patel.
This appropriation is problematic. Appropriation of mass leaders has
been a thrust of RSS strategy by distorting historical facts. Similar
attempts have been made towards Ambedkar and Bhagat Singh.
Thus it is imperative to demystify Patel.
Though a lot has been written about Patel and his equation with RSS,
keeping the aggressive appropriation of icons like Patel, it is
important to repeat and emphasize on the following points. One point to
be noted at the very outset is that historical figures are
multidimensional and it is difficult to capture them in all their
complexity. However one must try to understand Patel in a more nuanced
way.
1. Patel was an admirer of Gandhi. He was pained with the
assassination of Gandhi. He was all his life a staunch Congressman
though sympathetic to plight of Hindus and Sikhs during the communal
violence post and pre partition.
2. Though he was distrustful towards Muslims in India as a section
of the community supported the Muslim League, he as a Home Minister
vowed to protect all citizens equally and certainly did not encourage
communal violence against Muslims.
3. Patel was not a supporter of the RSS or endorsed Hindutva
politics which is narrow, discriminatory and exclusionist in its
outlook.
The right wing is appropriating Patel for a number of reasons. It is no
secret that the RSS had no role to play in the freedom struggle of
India. Their members were not incarcerated in the prisons or enjoyed
following amongst masses due to leaderships in any social movements-
peasants, trade unions, women, reform in Hindu personal laws,
eradication of caste etc. The freedom struggle represented certain ideas
that of equality, pluralism, inclusion and democracy. The struggle was
not just against the colonial powers for political power but also for a
just and equal society ridden of hierarchies based on caste, religion
and class. Patel being a tall leader of Congress can bring this
legitimacy to the RSS, give them a respectable face and wider support
base. Secondly with constant exaggeration and misrepresenting the
differences between Nehru and Patel, the Nehruvian vision of the society
and India is sought to be discredited since this vision is completely
conflicting and incompatible to
that of Hindutva. The Hindu supremacists want to taint this legacy and
establish a new social order and deepen the existing hierarchies.
The actions of BJP leaders should be analyzed from this prism. To begin
with, it would be interesting to study the views of Patel on RSS itself.
"There can be no doubt that the RSS did service to the Hindu Society. In
the areas where there was the need for help and organisation, the young
men of the RSS protected women and children and strove much for their
sake. No person of understanding could have a word of objection
regarding that. But the objectionable part arose when they, burning with
revenge, began attacking Mussalmans. Organising Hindus and helping them
is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent
and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing".
On the assassination of Gandhi, he expresses his anguish in no uncertain terms.
"All their speeches were full communal poison. It was not necessary to
spread poison and enthuse the Hindus and organise for their protection.
As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice
of the valuable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of sympathy of the
Government or of the people no more remained for the RSS. In fact the
opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men
expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji's death. Under these
conditions it became inevitable for the Government to take action
against the RSS.
"As regards the RSS and the Hindu Maha-sabha, the case relating to
Gandhiji's murder is sub judice and I should not like to say anything
about the participation of the two organisations, but our reports do
confirm that, as a result of the activities of these two bodies,
particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in
which such ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind
that the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in this
conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the
existence of the government and the state. Our reports show that those
activities, despite the ban, have not died down. Indeed, as time has
marched on, the RSS circles are becoming more defiant and are indulging
in their subversive activities in an increasing measure" (Zakaria,
2016).
It becomes clear from Patel's words that he opposed the RSS politics of
hatred and targeting of the Muslims. He condemns the assassination of
Gandhi and the politics that claimed his life. This is antithetical to
the stand of RSS which hasn't condemned Gandhi's death but gone to the
extent of installing busts and building temples of Nathuram Godse, the
assassin of Gandhi!
It also speaks volumes on the idea of India nurtured by Patel. Being a
staunch congressman and influenced by Gandhi, he understood the
contribution of different communities to India. The very fact that Patel
skillfully brought as princely states onto one political platform
without bloodshed and prevented balkanization gives an insight into his
vision for an India which gave space to all- different languages,
cultures, religions. Pluralism and democracy were hallmarks of his
vision. This vision is again in contrast of a Hindu rashtra where the
Hindus are rightful citizens and citizens of other religions merely
second class citizens.
However this doesn't necessarily mean that some of his views were not
problematic. He had certain extent of reservations and also distrust
about the Muslims. This grew out of the support of a section of Muslims
that the Muslim League enjoyed. Naturally it was wrong to paint the
whole community with one brush, since large sections of Muslims
supported the Congress and rejected the two nation theory. Nonetheless
some of his policies have attracted flak. For example the enactment of
the Evacuee Property Law, which resulted in the expropriation of their
businesses, industries, shops, houses, lands and all such assets,
movable and immovable; even Muslims, suspected by the police of
intending to go to Pakistan were covered under it. However this law was
for political exigency and in response to a similar law enacted by
Pakistan. Another policy was the draconian permit system where the
Indian Muslims who went to visit Pakistan after 15th August 1947, were
at a risk of losing their
citizenship.
These actions, though questionable, doesn't make Patel communal or
suggests that he supported violence against Muslims or encouraged it for
his own political or electoral interests. Manufacturing of violence and
communal polarization is a project resorted to by the Hindu
supremacists for electoral gains. This distinction is significant but
often sought to be blurred by the Hindu supremacists when they co-opt
Patel. As a leader who has constitutional duty he was of the opinion
that India is a country for all and not a Hindu state and thus all
citizens have to be protected. "I do not think it will be possible to
consider India as a Hindu state with Hinduism as a state religion. We
must not forget that there are other minorities whose protection is our
primary responsibility" (Zakaria, Sabrang India, 2016)
This is of course a far cry from the approach of the current government
which praises Patel. There is an atmosphere of impunity and
encouragement given to vigilantes to target the vulnerable groups like
Muslims and Dalits under the name of cow protection. Though the current
political dispensation prefers to call the perpetrators of violence as
'fringe' elements or criminal elements thereby trivializing their acts
of violence, Patel had a different approach as a statesman. There are
numerous hate crimes taking place unabashedly with no justice. On the
other hand, there were instances where Patel himself went to spots of
trouble to quell any violence and took proactive steps to protect the
Muslims and punish the criminals. The famous Dargah of Nizamuddin Auliya
in South Delhi was surrounded by some miscreants. He went there himself
and clearly instructed the officers to protect the Muslims and take
action against the miscreants. Whenever such incidents took place where
the
Muslim community was harassed or instigated, he said, "If you think that
you can go on constantly troubling loyal Muslims because they happen to
be Muslims, then our freedom is not worthwhile."
Cow protection is linked to nationalism as is the building of Ram Mandir
where the Babri Masjid was demolished. Interestingly Patel had a more
balanced approach towards Babri Masjid based on inclusion and dialogue.
In 1949, a mob descended upon the Babri Masjid and, after chasing away
the muezzin, installed an idol of Ram Lalla in order to claim it as a
temple. Within a month of the incident, Patel shot off a letter to the
chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, GB Pant warning that "there can be no
question of resolving such disputes by force". Differing even more
starkly from the final outcome of 1992, Patel opined that "such matters
can only be resolved peacefully if we take the willing consent of the
Muslim community with us" (Daniyal, 2014).
The latest statement of PM on Kashmir where he again pitted Sardar Patel
against Nehru is another attempt distorting the legacy which stood for
unity, democracy and pluralism. Patel was a mixed bag, multifaceted,
complex. He was of course different from Nehru or any other political
colleague. Patel had his own temperament, resoluteness and biases. But
what he was not was communal and parochial. He espoused the cause of a
united India where all citizens had an equal stake. He shared a vision
of an India based on equality with Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar. He was a
man who had fought for the rights of the farmers at Bardoli and other
places. If the Hindu supremacists want to emulate Patel, their starting
point should be his efforts for justice and equality. The Hindu
supremacists on the other hand at ideologically at loggerheads with
Patel by upholding, manipulating and further deepening of caste and
religious divides.